What a photo SHOULD be...

mfogiel said:
This is taken from "Online Photographer" by Mike Johnston.

"Quote o' the Day: Jeffrey Ladd

"A photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness."

—Jeffrey Ladd
[Quoted on Conscientious, found by Stan Banos]"

Well, that would do away with The Rhine, the Old and New Topography, Dusseldorf School and 99.999% of all what is published online nowadays ...
Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?, Depends?
Click to expand...

Well I have to admit I had to Google Jeffrey Ladd as I had no idea who he is. I can only add that, having done so and looked at some of his pictures, I am in a position to conclude that his statement is infinitely more gibberish than even at first it appears.
 
Wow, my favorite philosopher is spinning in his grave. Lets do a little discourse analysis on this little sentence:
"A photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness."
The word "should" implies a rule and in this case it seems more like an ethical rule then anything else.
"More interesting" is a very difficult concept. What makes something "more interesting"? If I'm at the site of the Battle at Hastings or at the site were Prince William of Orange was murdered I can feel the importance and history of those places - how can a picture be "more interesting" then that? It almost implies that we should only make picture of uninteresting "subjects" because only those can be "more iinteresting".
"Transcend" is a word some philosophers love to use. I guess that Ladd uses "Transcend" in the definition "more interesting" and that means that he says the same thing twice.
Ladd seems to show to be of a specific philosophic tradition by the use of the word "obviousness" - it seems the "subject" of the picture has a "obviousness" in the way an object can have an essence in some philosophical traditions. Those traditions aren't mine.

Somebody mentioned the HCB picture of the bike under the flight of stairs, to me that is the proof that Ladd is wrong. That picture is just that, a picture of stairs and somebody on a bike - it is just that, it doesn't "transcend" and it isn't "more interesting" - if I was there at the same time, I would've seen exactly that. But still, it is a good picture: good framing and good timing. Ladd is oh so wrong!

With this kind of reasoning, I usually quote Wittgenstein: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" (Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent)
 
FWIW, the original context: Ladd's review of 'Escape' by Danila Tkatchenko.

[---] With respect to Tkachenko, every photo he presents here is almost exactly formally the same. The subject is maddeningly centered in every photo, the distance from the subject is mostly uniform, and he uses only horizontals with little else of interest in the frame besides a wall of foliage. In fact, I looked at the photographer’s website and every photo in his other projects as well had all the same formal qualities.

That is the fatal flaw in the work for me, and a perceived flaw which very few other viewers even seem to care about. Perhaps they are transfixed by the rarity of the subject and the thoughts of access afforded to Tkachenko by the men he portrays, to see otherwise. Or, I am certainly a dinosaur that still believes that there is a base criteria for me in photography – that a photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness – here they are not even close.
Click to expand...
 
What a Photo should be:

It can bring a Smile to the Face or a Tear to the Eye...

Pulls the Viewer's Attention into focus & keeps them looking.
 
We can make things difficult if we want to, but it does not help much...

I think 'transcending the obvious' is a pretty simple concept to understand because it clearly allows for subjective interpretation. It is not stating what 'the obvious' is and therefore does not comment on what is required to reach 'transcendence'.

To me, that statement simply means that a successful photograph causes the view to respond differently to how they ordinarily would i.e. 'I have seen a thousand peppers in markets and in my kitchen, but that image is...[insert your choice of words]. We must of course allow for those who would view the Weston print and say 'it looks like a blo0dy pepper.'

I don't think we need to relate to the 'real subject' only to the person's conception of it (because often photos are of subject matter we will never see in person). In this regard, I do think stunning landscape images (for example) can create a far more compelling visual pull than the real scene. In the same way, 'decisive moments' are frozen split seconds we can swell on and therefore they can be more powerful than the full moment, which can be missed, or so fleeting that it is not really processed or appreciated. After all, this is the basis for shooting stills and not video.

Successful photographs, IMHO, encourage an enduring interest between viewer and photo. They stimulate thoughts and emotional responses that we generally either like to explore, live with or shut out (but ultimately remember).
 
johnwolf said:
Makes good sense to me. May my photographs transcend the obvious. That's where poetry begins.

John
Click to expand...

helenhill_HH said:
What a Photo should be:

It can bring a Smile to the Face or a Tear to the Eye...

Pulls the Viewer's Attention into focus & keeps them looking
Click to expand...

Turtle said:
We can make things difficult if we want to, but it does not help much...

I think 'transcending the obvious' is a pretty simple concept to understand because it clearly allows for subjective interpretation. It is not stating what 'the obvious' is and therefore does not comment on what is required to reach 'transcendence'.

...
Click to expand...

Agree with these.
Photography is simple, the goal is simple, we who has seen enough photos will recognize an amazingly good photograph when we see one.

We don't need to justify it with super-detailed tautological analysis of a single sentence.
 
Never have taken a photo trying to transcend the obvious, but to isolate it from a stream of normality so that inherent and indicated aspects that commonly pass overseen may be perceived. wonder if this is just the same, but I'd rather think of it as a celebration of the obvious than of transcending it.
 
I think using words such as transcend, obviousness, sublime don't add or help much when used in one/two word explanations/descriptions/statements. They mask subtitles in the discourse. I find these interesting.
 
Godfrey said:
Saying, "this statement doesn't make any sense to me," is a lot more honest then twisting the statement around to poke fun at it. Ridicule is a poor form of discussion.
G
Click to expand...

I was not attempting to ridicule the statement, simply pointing out that in my view it's pretty meaningless and attempting to explain why. I believe I am entitled to give my opinion without being accused of not being 100% honest.
 
The Mike J. statement works for some.. . but like his 1 lens+ 1 camera challenge just isn't what works for others. Mike has probably used, reviewed, more photos and equipment than I'll ever EVER see or use or have even know about. .. but--- when it comes to what "makes" a good photo is in my opinion just that, my opinion. Might as well just say "I don't know what makes a good Photograph, but I know what I like.
 
The best definition offered so far as to what makes a good photo is: "I know it when I see it."

But that doesn't give much info or any help to those who are less experienced and are wanting to learn.
 
lawrence said:
As far as 'transcending its obviousness' goes, this sort of talk has been going on in photography circles just about forever. Edward Weston photographed a pepper and it looks great. You might say the photograph 'transcends the obviousness of the pepper' but perhaps not for someone who's never seen or tasted a pepper before. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

I think this is close to what my first thought was, that once a photograph is taken it is a new object, not necessarily related to the original. Also, I'm not a dusseldorf school fan, but it seems to me that Rhein II does 'transcend' the original scene.
 
I have seen many impressive photos with crappy subjects that won't stand on their own, but suit well in the context of those photos. I have also seen a lot of photos that others have liked but I have not, it's very subjective. I think a good photograph only depends on 2 things - the photographer' and viewer's eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom